[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3403-3423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1707]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5404-6]
Proposed General NPDES Permit for Placer Mining in Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of a proposed general permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a proposal to modify general permit regulating placer
mining activities in the State of Alaska. On May 31, 1994, EPA Region
10 published a general permit for discharges of wastewater from placer
mines in Alaska. 59 FR 28079, May 31, 1994. If issued, the proposed
modified permit would modify effluent limitations, standards,
[[Page 3404]]
prohibitions and other conditions on wastewater discharges set forth in
the Alaska placer miner general permit. These conditions are based on
existing national effluent guidelines, state water quality standards
and material contained in the administrative record. A description of
the basis for the conditions and requirements of the proposed modified
general permit, and especially of the basis for the proposed
modifications, is given in the fact sheet.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866:The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this action from the review requirements of Executive Order 12866.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT:Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), EPA must prepare a
written statement to accompany any rules with Federal mandates that may
result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. When such a statement is required, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives that achieve the objective of such a rule. EPA must select
the alternative that is the least costly, most cost-effective or least
budensome, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it
was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. Because the proposed
modification will not impose costs in excess of $100 million, it
imposes no unfunded mandate within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates
Act.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:Interested persons may submit comments on the
proposed modified general permit to EPA, Region 10 at the address
below. Comments must be received in the regional office by March 18,
1996.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:A public hearing will be held in Fairbanks, Alaska, on
March 5, 1996 from 6:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m at the offices of the
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and
Water Management, 3700 Airport Way.
REQUEST FOR COVERAGE:Written request for coverage and authorization to
discharge under the general permit shall be provided to EPA, Region 10,
as described in Part I.E. of the draft modified permit. Authorization
to discharge requires written notification from EPA that coverage has
been granted and that a specific permit number has been assigned to the
operation.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed general permit should be sent to
Tim Hamlin; U.S. EPA, Region 10; 1200 Sixth Avenue SO-155; Seattle,
Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Hamlin at the Seattle address
above or by telephone at (206) 553-8311.
Dated: January 11, 1996.
Phil Millam,
Acting Director, Office of Water.
Fact Sheet
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-1214.
General Permit for Placer Miners No.: AKG-37-0000.
Proposed Modification of a General National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to
the Provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for Alaska Placer Miners
(except those identified in Part III of this Fact Sheet)
This fact sheet includes (a) the tentative determination of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to modify the NPDES general
permit issued on May 13, 1994 and published at 59 FR 28079 (May 31,
1994), (b) information on public comment, public hearings and appeal,
(c) the description of the industry and proposed discharges, (d) other
conditions and requirements.
Persons wishing to comment on the tentative determinations
contained in the proposed modification to the general permit may do so
before the expiration date of the Public Notice. All written comments
should be submitted to EPA as described in the Public Comments Section
of the attached Public Notice. After the expiration date of the Public
Notice, the Director, Office of Water, will make a final determination
with respect to issuance of the permit. The modifications to the
general permit will become effective 30 days after the final
determination is made.
The proposed modifications to the NPDES general permit and other
related documents are on file and may be inspected and copies made at
the above address any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Copies and other information may be requested by
writing to EPA at the above address to the attention of the Water
Permits Section, or by calling (206) 553-8332. This material is also
available from the EPA Alaska Operations Office, Room 537, Federal
Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7588 or Alaska
Operations Office, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 100, Juneau, Alaska
99801 or the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Northern
Regional Office, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. History
B. Permit Coverage
1. General Permit
2. Types of Placer Mine Operations Covered by the Permit
3. Limitations on Coverage
4. Individual Permits
C. Description of the Industry
1. Overburden Removal
2. Mining Methods
3. Processing Methods
II. Effluent Characteristics
III. Basis for Effluent Limitations on Mechanical Operations
A. Background
B. Technology-Based Limitations
C. Water Quality Based Limitation
1. Introduction
2. Alaska Water Quality Standards
a. Turbidity
b. Sediment
c. Metals
3. Limitations
a. Flow and Turbidity
b. Settleable Solids
c. Arsenic
IV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
V. Basis for Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
A. Monitoring
1. Daily Monitoring
a. Mechanical Operations
b. Suction Dredging
2. Seasonal Monitoring--Turbility and Arsenic
B. Reporting
VI. Other Requirements
A. Spill Prevention Control and Containment (SPCC)
B. Endangered Species
VII. Storm Exemption
VIII.New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
IX. State Certification
X. References
Technical Information
I. Background Information
A. History
Regulation of discharges from gold placer mining operations in
Alaska has been a matter of extreme controversy since enactment of the
Clean Water Act. Starting in 1976 and 1977, EPA issued approximately
170 individual NPDES permits to Alaskan gold placer miners. Those
permits were challenged administratively. Some parties argued that the
permits were not stringent enough, others argued that the permits were
too stringent. EPA issued an additional 269 individual NPDES permits
for gold placer mining in 1983. All of those permits were challenged
judicially in Trustees for Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984).
EPA issued a new round of individual permits (446 in total) in 1984
to replace
[[Page 3405]]
expiring permits and to incorporate new promulgated regulations. In
1985, EPA modified the 1984 permits, based on the Trustee for Alaska
decision, and issued 93 additional permits. In 1987, EPA issued an
additional 368 new permits. The 1987 permits were the subject of
litigation based on allegations that EPA and the State unreasonably
delayed acting on requests for hearings on those permits in Stein v.
Kelso, Case No. F89-21 Civil (D.Alaska) (litigation against EPA). The
case against EPA was eventually dismissed as moot on April 12, 1990.
The permits that EPA did issue in 1985 and 1987 were challenged
administratively and, ultimately, judicially in Ackels v. EPA, 7 F.3d
862 (9th Cir. 1993). A decision by the State of Alaska to certify the
1985 permits was ultimately resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court in
Miners Advocacy Council, Inc. v. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation,
778 P.2d 1126 (Alaska 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1077 (1990). The
State's certification of the 1987 permits was also challenged in Stein
v. Kelso, 846 P.2d 123 (Alaska 1993).
During the pendency of the permit proceedings described above, EPA
also was sued in the United States District Court for the District of
Alaska in 1986. That case raised a variety of statutory and
constitutional issues, which were ultimately dismissed or resolved in
the federal courts. One of the concerns raised in the 1986 litigation,
whether EPA had a duty to promulgate national effluent limitations
guidelines for the gold placer mining point source category, was
eventually resolved when EPA published such guidelines in 1988. See 40
CFR Part 440 Subpart M. Those guidelines also were the subject of
litigation in Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990).
On June 30, 1992, EPA received a notice of citizen suit which
alleged that EPA failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to regulate
suction dredge gold placer mining operations. At that time, EPA decided
it would issue individual permits for mechanical placer mining
operations (for the 1993 mining season) and that it would propose a
general permit for suction dredge operations. On January 14, 1994, EPA
did propose such a general permit, although permit coverage was
proposed for mechanical, as well as suction dredge operations. 59 FR
2504 (Jan. 14, 1994). After responding to public comment, EPA issued
the final general permit on May 13, 1994. 59 FR 28079 (May 31, 1994).
On September 28, 1994, two environmental groups filed a petition for
review of the general permit in the Ninth Circuit. Without any
admission or denial of any of the Petitioners' allegations, EPA is
proposing to modify the general permit today.
B. Permit Coverage
1. General Permit
a. Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Although individual
permits have been issued to individual dischargers on a case-by-case
basis, EPA's regulations also authorize the issuance of ``general
permits'' to categories of discharges [40 CFR 122.28] when a number of
point sources are:
(1) Located within the same geographic area and warrant similar
pollution control measures;
(2) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
(3) Discharge the same types of wastes;
(4) Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions;
(5) Require the same or similar monitoring requirements; and
(6) In the opinion of the Director, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.
EPA finds that the placer mining discharges to be permitted under
the modified general permit proposed for modification today meet these
criteria. To the extent that any given placer mining operation warrants
different effluent limitations because of site-specific factors
pertaining to turbidity, such would be accounted for under Section
II.A.1.c. of the permit.
b. Like individual permits, a violation of a condition contained in
a general permit constitutes a violation of the Act and subjects the
owner or operator of the permitted facility to the penalties specified
in Section 309 of the Act.
c. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under this modified
General Permit would be required [40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i)], including
new NOIs from permittees already covered under the May 31, 1994 general
permit (i.e., dischargers covered under the permit prior to today's
proposed modification). The NOI requirements are outlined in Part I.F.
of the permit. A State of Alaska Annual Placer Mining Application, or
other document, would be acceptable if it contains all the items
specified in the permit.
d. This modification would not affect the duration of the May 31,
1994 general permit. The modified permit would expire five (5) years
from the date of issuance of the original permit, specifically, on June
30, 1999. Permittees covered under this modified general permit may
continue to discharge according to its terms after expiration of the
permit provided those permittees submit a timely and complete
application for renewal--i.e., a new NOI--prior to expiration. Only
those facilities authorized to discharge under the modified permit
prior to its expiration who submit a NOI 90 days prior to the
expiration may continue to claim coverage under the administratively
continued permit. After expiration, no ``new dischargers'' may claim
general permit coverage until it is reissued.
2. Types of Placer Mine Operations Covered by the Permit
EPA is proposing to modify the NPDES general permit for Alaska
placer mining operations issued on May 31, 1994. The modified general
permit would apply to certain facilities that mine and process gold
placer ores using gravity separation methods to recover the gold metal
contained in the ore. Specifically, the modified general permit would
not apply to certain types of mining operations currently authorized
under the May 31, 1994 permit. Discharges from some suction dredge
operations, discharges from operations using hydraulic removal of
overburden, and discharges from operations into special use waters
would no longer be eligible for coverage under the general permit as
modified. Discharges from operations using certain beneficiation
methods would continue to be ineligible for coverage under the general
permit as modified. The modified permit would apply to all open-cut and
mechanical dredge gold placer mines except those open-cut mines that
mine less than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per mining season and
mechanical dredges that remove less than 50,000 cubic yards of placer
ore per mining season. These operations are covered by the effluent
guidelines and described in 40 CFR 440.140(b).
EPA previously completed a literature research project considering
the environmental effects of suction dredge operation and potential
controls that could be placed on them. (North, 1993.) This project
considered effects of suction dredge operations and recommended that
additional study be undertaken on the effects of suction dredging with
intake hoses larger than eight inches in size. EPA has not had the
opportunity to study the effects of larger operations. Thus, the
modified general permit would only authorize
[[Page 3406]]
discharges by suction dredge operations with intake hoses of eight
inches or less; it would not authorize discharges by suction dredge
operations with intake hoses larger than eight inches. Any such
discharges would require coverage under an individual permit. All
suction dredge operations with intake hoses of eight inches and less
would be eligible for coverage under the proposed modified general
permit.
Discharges resulting from hydraulic removal of overburden would not
be covered by this modified permit. Discharges from ponds containing
both ``sluice water'' and wastewater from hydraulicking would not be
authorized by the modified general permit. (Hydraulicking refers both
to the hydraulic removal of overburden and the use of hydraulic power
to move raw rock to the point of processing, i.e. to the gate of the
sluice or other processing equipment).
Individual NPDES permits issued previously did not cover discharges
associated with hydraulic removal of overburden. These permits were
challenged administratively. The EPA Environmental Appeals Board in its
September 3, 1992 Remand Order of NPDES Appeal No. 91-23 sanctioned
EPA's position that a site-specific factual analysis is necessary to
determine the precise terms of any permit that authorizes discharges
from hydraulic removal of overburden. It also required EPA to consider
an applicant's entire process when the applicant so requests.
Because of the site-specific analysis necessary for discharges
associated with hydraulicking, EPA proposes not to authorize such
discharges under the today's modified general permit. Thus, such
discharges would also require coverage under an individual permit.
Finally, this permit would not authorize discharges resulting from
beneficiation methods utilizing cyanidation, froth flotation, heap or
vat leaching and mercury amalgamation. Such discharges were not
authorized under the May 31, 1994 permit.
3. Limitations on Coverage
Certain streams and stream reaches in Alaska have been designated
as Wild & Scenic Rivers or are located in State Parks, National Parks
and Preserves, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas,
National Wildlife Refuges and National Wildlife Areas. Under the
proposed modification, this permit would not apply to facilities
discharging to these special use waters.
For mining wastewaters discharged to these special use waters, the
Agency has determined that it lacks sufficient information to assure
that compliance with this modified general permit would also assure
compliance with applicable legal requirements. Such discharges may be
authorized under a future general permit or under an individual permit.
Like the May 31 1994 permit, this modified permit would not relieve
a permittee of the requirements of other applicable federal, state or
local laws; permittees should contact the appropriate state or federal
agencies to inquire about additional permits that may be required.
Additional requirements may be imposed by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game in resident and anadromous fish streams. Also, ``The
Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or
Migration of Anadromous Fish'' lists the streams in the State which
require a Habitat permit from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
4. Individual Permits
Owners or operators authorized by a general permit may be excepted
from coverage by a general permit by applying to the Director of the
NPDES program for an individual permit. This request may be made by
submitting an NPDES permit application, together with supporting
documentation for the request no later than 90 days after publication
by EPA of the final general permit in the Federal Register, or 180 days
prior to the commencement of operation of a new source or new
discharger. EPA also intends to give appropriate priority to those
dischargers who would no longer be covered under the general permit as
a result of the proposed changes. Specifically, permittees discharging
to special use waters, including the Forty-Mile River, suction dredge
permittees with intake hoses greater than 8 inches, and hydraulickers
would be given appropriate priority in the individual permit process
provided they make prompt application for such coverage.
Finally, EPA intends to give appropriate priority to those
dischargers who wish to receive a site-specific turbidity limit based
on a different approach than that proposed in the modified general
permit. These dischargers must provide sufficient information to EPA to
establish either that (1) their effluent does not exceed water quality
criteria for metals other than arsenic or (2) the natural background
level of turbidity of the receiving water is greater than zero.
Sufficient information means analytical monitoring data that reflects
at least three samples taken over the period of not less than three
weeks. (A detailed explanation of the proposed modified general
permit's approach to turbidity including its relationship to metals may
be found at part III. C. of this fact sheet.)
The Director may require any person authorized by the modified
general permit to apply for and obtain an individual permit, or any
interested person may petition the Director to take this action. The
Director may consider the issuance of individual permits when:
a. The single discharge or the cumulative number of discharges is/
are a significant contributor of pollution;
b. The discharger is not in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit;
c. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants
applicable to the point source;
d. Effluent limitations guidelines are subsequently promulgated for
the point sources covered by the general permit;
e. A Water Quality Management plan containing requirements
applicable to such point sources is approved; or
f. The requirements listed in the previous paragraphs are not met.
C. Description of the Industry
Placer mining involves the mining and extraction of gold or other
heavy metals and minerals primarily from alluvial deposits. These
deposits may be in existing stream beds or ancient, often buried,
stream deposits, i.e. paleo or fossil placers. Many Alaskan placer
deposits consist of unconsolidated clay, sand, gravel, cobble and
boulders that contain very small amounts of native gold or other
precious metals. Most are stream deposits and occur along present
stream valleys or on benches or terraces above existing streams. Beach
placer deposits have been and continue to be important producers in
Alaska. These deposits, most notable near Nome, include both submerged
and elevated beach placer deposits.
Essential components of placer mining include overburden removal,
mining of the gold placer gravels, and processing (gold recovery).
1. Overburden Removal
Various types of overburden include barren alluvial gravels, broken
slide rock, or glacial deposits. In some parts of Alaska the pay
gravels are overlaid by silty, organic-rich deposits of barren, frozen
material generally comprised of wind-blown particles (loess).
Particularly high ice content is common. Most facilities utilize
mechanical methods for removal of overburden
[[Page 3407]]
because they generally use the same excavating equipment for mining.
Overburden can also be removed by hydraulicking. Hydraulicking
consists of the loosening of material by water delivered under pressure
through a hydraulic giant (monitor). This general permit does not
authorize discharges from operations that use hydraulicking to remove
overburden. Such discharges would be considered through the individual
permit process.
2. Mining Methods
Placer mining methods include both dredging systems and open-cut
mining. Dredging systems are classified as hydraulic or mechanical
(including bucket dredging), depending on the methods of digging.
Suction dredges, the most common hydraulic dredging system, are quite
popular in Alaska with the small or recreational gold placer miner.
Like all floating dredges, suction dredges consist of a supporting hull
with a mining control system, excavating and lifting mechanism, gold
recovery circuits, and waste disposal system. All floating dredges are
designed to work as a unit to dig, classify, beneficiate ores and
dispose of waste. Because suction dredges work the stream bed rather
than stream banks, the discharge from suction dredges consists totally
of stream water and bed material.
Open-cut methods commonly used in Alaska involve the use of
bulldozers to remove overburden, push pay dirt to sluiceboxes, stack
tailing and construct ditches ponds and roads. At some sites, loaders
are used to move material.
3. Processing Methods
A large percentage of the present gold placer mining operations use
some type of sluice box to perform the primary processing function,
beneficiation. An increasing number of jig plants are also being used
at open-cut mines. Many operations make use of feed size classification
which involves the physical separation of large rocks and boulders from
smaller materials such as gravel and sand. The object of classification
is to prevent the processing of large-sized material which is unlikely
to contain gold values. Commonly used classification equipment
includes: grizzlies, trommels and static or vibrating screens. The most
common gold recovery method is sluicing. A sluice is a long, sloped
trough into which water is directed to effectuate separation of gold
from ore. A slurry of water and ore flows down the sluice and the gold,
due to its relatively high density, is trapped in riffles along the
sluice.
II. Effluent Characteristics
Discharges from placer mining operations consist of water and the
naturally occurring materials found in the alluvial deposits (e.g.
sand, silt, clay, trace minerals and metals, etc.). Some of the
elements measured in placer mine effluent are derived principally from
sulfide, oxide, carbonate, and silicate mineral species, and may
include antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, silver, and zinc. Most of these parameters have been found in
trace amounts in discharges from some mines.
Based on review of available scientific literature, sampling data
collected by EPA and the Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS), EPA has
concluded that the pollutants of primary concern are settleable solids,
turbidity, and arsenic. Arsenic is the primary metal of concern due to
its potential toxicity and its naturally occurring abundance in most
Alaskan soils, which may be discharged to Alaskan waters along with
other mining wastes.
III. Basis for Effluent Limitations on Mechanical Operations
A. Background
The Clean Water Act requires that NPDES permits establish effluent
limitations to assure compliance with technology-based control
standards and with State water quality standards. Technology-based
limitations represent the degree of pollutant reduction that can be
economically achieved by using various levels of pollution control
technology. In accordance with Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, NPDES
permits must also assure compliance with any more stringent
limitations, particularly those necessary to meet State water quality
standards. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) requires NPDES
permits to include conditions to ``(a)chieve water quality standards
established under Sec. 303 of the Clean Water Act.''
B. Technology-Based Limitations
Effluent limits required in this permit for the control of
pollutants are published in 40 CFR Part 440 Subpart M (Gold Placer Mine
Subcategory), which was published at 53 FR 18764 (May 24, 1988). These
limits apply only to a certain category of mechanical placer mining
operations. Additional information regarding the basis for establishing
the effluent limits is summarized in the EPA publication titled
``Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point
Source Category--Gold Placer Mine Subcategory'' (May 1988)
(``Development Document'').
The Subpart M regulations establish effluent limitations guidelines
and standards based on the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), and new source performance standards (NSPS) based on
the best available demonstrated technology. The BAT limitations and
NSPS represent the level of treatment required for all placer mining
operations covered under 40 CFR Part 440 Subpart M. Subpart M also
mandates specific best management practices (BMPs).
The limitations and standards established under Subpart M were
derived based on the use of settling ponds and total recirculation of
process wastewater. Subpart M allows a mine to discharge incidental
water that enters the mine site through infiltration, drainage and mine
drainage (including waters entering the mine through precipitation,
snow melt, drainage water, ground water infiltration and the melting of
permafrost) provided that three conditions are met: (1) the incidental
waters have commingled with process waters, (2) the volume of the
discharge is no greater than the volume of infiltration, drainage and
mine drainage waters that is in excess of the make-up water required
for operation of the beneficiation process, and (3) the concentration
of settleable solids in the discharged water does not exceed the
effluent limitations specified below.
For the purpose of this permit, discharged wastewater consists of
incidental waters commingled with process waters used to move the ore
to and through the beneficiation process, water used to aid in
classification, and water used in gravity separation. Subpart M imposes
the following effluent limitations:
a. The concentration of settleable solids in wastewater discharged
from an open-cut mine plant or a dredge plant site must not exceed an
instantaneous maximum of 0.2 ml/l.
b. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged from an open-
cut mine plant or dredge plant site must not exceed the volume of
infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters which is in excess of
the make-up water required for operation of the beneficiation process.
These technology-based requirements are specified in Parts
II.A.1.a. and b. of the proposed permit.
Part II.A.2. of the proposed permit prohibits the discharge of any
[[Page 3408]]
wastewater during periods when new water is allowed to enter the plant
site. It is required to assure compliance with the technology-based
requirements established in Part II.A.1.a. of the proposed permit.
C. Water Quality Based Limitations
1. Introduction
In addition to the technology-based effluent limitations, the
permit includes effluent limitations which are required to ensure
compliance with WQS (Title 18, Chapter 70 of the Alaska Administrative
Code).
These standards vary with the beneficial use they are established
to protect. In water bodies with more than one designated beneficial
use, the more restrictive criteria apply. The WQS protect most fresh
water sources for use in drinking, agriculture, aquaculture and
industrial water supply, contact and secondary recreation, and the
growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life (18
AAC 70.050). This permit will protect all the above uses.
The WQS also authorize the State to approve mixing zones. 18 AAC
70.032(a) states in part that ``(i)n applying the water quality
criteria set out in this chapter, the department will, upon application
and in its discretion, prescribe in a permit or certification a mixing
zone.'' A mixing zone is the volume of water, adjacent to a discharge,
in which wastes discharged mix with the receiving water, and within
which the water quality criteria set forth in 18 AAC 70.020 may be
exceeded. 18 AAC 70.032 sets forth the method for determining whether a
mixing zone is appropriate and, if so, the appropriate size of a mixing
zone. Where a mixing zone is authorized, WQS must be achieved at the
edge on the mixing zone, known also as the zone of initial dilution
(``ZID'').
2. Alaska Water Quality Standards
EPA has evaluated the following WQS in determining appropriate
permit limits:
a. Turbidity. According to the WQS, the most protective turbidity
criteria applies to fresh water sources classified for use as drinking
water and contact recreation uses. These criteria, which are set forth
in 18 AAC 70.020(b), state that turbidity ``(m)ay not exceed 5
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) above natural conditions when the
natural turbidity is 50 NTU or less; and more than 10% increase in
turbidity when the natural condition is more than 50 NTU, not to exceed
a maximum increase of 25 NTU.''
b. Sediment. The most protective sediment criterion applies to
fresh water sources classified for use as drinking water. This
criterion is a narrative standard requires ``(n)o measurable increase
in concentration of settleable solids above natural conditions, as
measured by the volumetric Imhoff cone method.'' The lowest measurable
value of settleable solids using an Imhoff cone is 0.2 ml/l.
c. Metals. Under Alaska WQS, metals constitute ``Toxic and Other
Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances.'' The most restrictive
metals criterion is that which applies to fresh water used for the
growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life and
wildlife. See 18 AAC 70.020 (1995). That criterion prohibits individual
substances from exceeding the EPA Quality Criteria for Water or, if
those criteria do not exist, the Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels of
the Alaska Drinking Water Standards. Under this criterion, even more
stringent limits may be imposed where ADEC finds that the limits are
not appropriate for sensitive resident Alaska species.
(1) Metals Other Than Arsenic. Under the proposed modifications,
metals other than arsenic are regulated through permit limitations on
settleable solids and turbidity. EPA has determined that any metals
present in raw placer mining wastewater are associated with the solids
in that wastewater. Development Document at 98. By meeting the
settleable solids limitation of 0.2 ml/l, a miner will have removed
almost all of the metals that might otherwise be present in placer
mining effluent.
However, the concentration of remaining metals still might exceed
the metals criteria. Because the remaining metals are associated with
solids, the permit's limitations on turbidity--which EPA believes in
placer mining effluent is almost wholly composed of solids that have
not settled--will control any remaining metals that might be in the
effluent.
(2) Arsenic. EPA has concluded, based on available sampling data,
that arsenic is commonly associated with placer mining wastes.
Development Document at 118, 131. Locally, it is the most abundant
toxic metal present. Additionally, although several studies by EPA have
indicated a reduction in levels of arsenic in placer mining effluent as
a result of reducing settleable solids to 0.2 ml/l, EPA has concluded
that these reduced levels of arsenic are not consistently adequate to
achieve WQS. Development Document at 118, 131.
3. Limitations
Based on review of the WQS and available data, EPA proposes that
the modified general permit would contain limitations on flow,
turbidity, settleable solids and arsenic in order to meet the WQS of
concern.
a. Flow and Turbidity. Because metals other than arsenic are
strongly associated with solids, the technology-based limits on
settleable solids and on the volume of wastewater discharged--which
effectively require the use of settling ponds--greatly reduce metals.
EPA believes additional WQS-based limits on turbidity assure compliance
with the metals criteria. Placer mining effluent turbidity is almost
entirely caused by those solids that have not settled. Thus, turbidity
is an indicator of solids, and therefore it is an indicator of metals
too. The turbidity limit thus is not only necessary to achieve the WQS
for turbidity but also to achieve the WQS for metals other than
arsenic.
For purposes of the general permit, the maximum turbidity limit of
the effluent is that which would result in a level of turbidity, after
mixing, that does not exceed 5 NTU above background.
The State of Alaska has agreed, as part of its certification of
individual NOIs, to consider modifying the turbidity limitation to
account for the dilution effects of the receiving stream. The applicant
would provide with the NOI sufficient information demonstrating that
the dilution effect of the receiving water justifies a less stringent
limit and disclosing effluent flow. The necessary dilution information
may be provided, as it has in past years, by the permittee or by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). Where the applicant does
not provide the site-specific information sufficient to justify a less
stringent turbidity limit, coverage under the modified general permit
would be granted with a turbidity limit of 5 NTU above natural
background.
The proposed modification would make three changes that better
ensure that site-specific turbidity limits achieve WQS for metals other
than arsenic. First, the modified general permit condition would be
based on the assumption that the naturally occurring turbidity level is
0 NTU. This assumption is based on the fact that most Alaska waters
upon which placer mining is conducted have either no or very low levels
of naturally occurring turbidity.
Second, the flow estimate that the permittee traditionally has
provided--and which is used to calculate site-specific turbidity
limits--would be included in the permit as a limit. This
[[Page 3409]]
would foster accurate assessment of flows and thereby ensure
appropriate turbidity limits because applicants who might otherwise
tend to underestimate flows, and thereby get a higher turbidity limit,
will now have a strong incentive to estimate flows accurately. On the
other hand, those who inadvertently underestimate flows can, by
undertaking additional turbidity monitoring, negate the presumption
that a flow exceedance was resulted in a permit violation. So long as a
miner takes a turbidity sample that demonstrates compliance with the
turbidity limit, any flow exceedance will not be considered a permit
violation.
Third, the turbidity limit would be based on a more conservative
low-flow projection based on the thirty day, ten-year low flow (30Q10).
This low-flow projection is more conservative than would be required
were turbidity not being used as part of the permit's regime to comply
with WQS for metals other than arsenic. That is, 30Q10 is proposed in
recognition of the potential for placer mining effluent to include
toxic metals. Under the Alaska WQS, if the turbidity limitation were
not a means for implementing WQS for toxics, the less stringent three-
day, ten-year low flow (3Q2) would be the proposed low flow. (On the
other hand, a more stringent assumed low flow based on seven-day, ten-
year low flow (7Q10) would be utilized in accordance with the Alaska
WQS if placer mining effluent were known to contain toxic pollutants.
(A miner who seeks higher turbidity limits than would result under
application of the formula would have to apply for an individual permit
and would have to include information that demonstrates that the above
considerations do not be apply to his or her location. For example, a
miner may obtain a higher turbidity limit if he or she could
demonstrate in an individual permit application that turbidity natural
background is above zero or that metals are not present in the mining
effluent.)
The procedures that the State has indicated it would use to
calculate a turbidity limit under the general permit are substantially
the same as those used in the individual placer mining permits issued
since 1986. The proposed turbidity limit is based on utilizing a mass
balance equation which relates receiving water flow and turbidity to
effluent flow and turbidity. The basic form of this equation is:
Q1C1=Q2C2,
where
C1=effluent turbidity ;
C2=receiving water downstream turbidity after mixing where the
allowable increase is 5 NTU above background (i.e. 5 NTU);
Q1=effluent flow and,
Q2=total receiving water flow downstream from discharge after
complete mixing (i.e. 30Q10).
This formula differs from that used previously in two respects.
First, as discussed above, it assumes a background turbidity of zero.
The formula used in the May 31, 1994 permit was:
Q1C1+Q2C2=Q3C3
where Q1 represented receiving water flow upstream of the
discharge and C1 represented the receiving water turbidity
upstream of the discharge. Because the modified general permit would
assume that the upstream turbidity is zero, Q1C1 in the
previous formula falls out of this equation, and thus, the two
equations are the same. Authorization under the proposed modified
general permit would only be available based on the zero background
turbidity assumption. Second, under this formula no default effluent
flow will be utilized. A miner who submits an NOI for zero discharge
will not be eligible to receive a site-specific turbidity limit.
The necessary information to determine the appropriate turbidity
limit for the facility is the effluent and receiving water flow values.
Receiving water flow values can be obtained from the ADNR, Division of
Mining, upon request by the permittee. ADNR methodology for determining
upstream flow uses equations developed by Ashton and Carlson (1984).
The maximum effluent discharge flow must be estimated by the permittee
and must account for the effects of all excess incidental waters.
Discharges requesting turbidity limits that account for effluent
and receiving water flow rates would need to submit the necessary
information to EPA with the NOI. This would apply to all dischargers,
including those who have submitted this type of information in the
past, in order to assure that all site-specific information is up-to-
date. EPA would forward this information to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
b. Settleable Solids. The settleable solids limitation would serve
both as a technology-based limitation and as a WQS-based limitation.
The most conservative WQS standard for sediment is defined in terms of
settleable solids as measured using an Imhoff Cone. The Imhoff Cone
does not reliably quantify settleable solids at levels below 0.2 ml/l
which is also the technology-based limit for placer mines. Thus, the
permit's technology-based limit also would implement the WQS for
sediment.
As mentioned above, compliance with the settleable solids
limitation, also would greatly assist, if it would not alone ensure,
compliance with WQS for metals. The vast majority of whatever metals
are present in placer miner wastewater would be removed where the
discharge meets the settleable solids limitation. Development Document
at 98.
c. Arsenic. In establishing the arsenic limit, EPA proposes to rely
on the ``Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation;
Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) (``Amendments'') (57 FR 6084).
This rulemaking promulgated the chemical-specific numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants necessary to bring all States into compliance
with the requirements of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). The primary
focus of the rule is the inclusion of the federal water quality
criteria for pollutant(s) in State standards as necessary to support
water quality-based control programs (e.g. NPDES permits). Thus, the
existing federal standard of 0.18 g/l total recoverable
arsenic is applicable to Alaska and this number has been used to
determine the end-of-pipe limitation for the draft permit.
The arsenic criterion in the Amendments is currently under
consideration for revision. If the current arsenic criterion has been
stayed by EPA prior to final issuance of the modified general permit
and no new or interim criterion has been promulgated, EPA intends,
consistent with the Alaska Water Quality Standards, to include in the
final permit an arsenic limit of 50 g/l total arsenic which is
the Alaska Drinking Water Standard for arsenic. If the current
criterion is stayed and EPA issues a new or interim criterion that is
less stringent than the State standard, EPA likewise will include the
State standard. Alternatively, if the new or interim EPA-issued
criterion were more stringent than the State standard, it would be
included.
While Mixing zones are allowed under the Alaska standards for some
pollutant discharges, under 18 AAC 70.032(a)(1) the State will not
authorize a mixing zone if ``pollutants discharged could be expected to
cause carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on biota or human
health'' and result in a significant human health risk.
EPA is not proposing a mixing zone for arsenic but would include a
method for determining a mixing zone in the
[[Page 3410]]
permit if the Department determines that such a mixing zone is
appropriate and is in compliance with WQS.
The proposed general permit does not address circumstances where
natural background exceeds criteria. Miners seeking to discharge
arsenic at levels up to natural background must apply for individual
permits. They must also obtain from ADEC a limit based on natural
background in accordance with the provisions of 18 AAC 70.025.
IV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section 402(a)(2) authorizes EPA to include miscellaneous
requirements in permits on a case-by-case basis which are deemed
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. BMPs are practices
designed to control or abate the discharge of pollutants.
A. BMP conditions in Permit Parts III.A.1. to III.A.5. of the
proposed permit were developed pursuant to Section 304(e) of the CWA.
These BMPs are established in 40 CFR 440.148 and are necessary for
control and treatment of the drainage and infiltration water at gold
placer mines and to prevent solids and toxic metals from being released
to the receiving streams.
1. The intent of Permit Part III.A.1. is to avoid contamination of
nonprocess water, reduce the volume of water requiring treatment and
maximize the retention time and the settling capacity of the settling
ponds. The diversion would be required to totally circumvent any gold
recovery units, treatment facilities, etc. Any mine drainage sources
that pass through the actual mining area and are subject to
transporting pollutants would be required to be treated prior to
discharge.
2. Permit Part III.A.2. is intended to assure that water retention
devices are constructed appropriately. This may be achieved by
utilizing on-site material in a manner that the fine sealing material
(such as clays) are mixed in the berms with coarser materials. Berms
should be toed into the underlying earth, constructed in layers or
lifts and each layer thoroughly compacted to ensure mechanical and
watertight integrity of the berms. Other impermeable material such as
plastic sheets or membranes may be used inside the berms when sealing
fines are unavailable or in short supply. The side slope of berms
should not be greater than the natural angle of repose of the materials
used in the berms or a slope of 2:1, whichever is flatter.
3. The intent of Permit Part III.A.3 is to ensure that the
investment in pollution control results in the maximum benefit in terms
of reduced pollutant volumes reaching water of the United States. These
measures may include location of the storage ponds and storage areas to
assure that they will not be washed out by reasonably predictable
flooding or by the return of a relocated stream to it original stream
bed. Materials removed from settling ponds should be placed in bermed
areas where liquids from the materials cannot flow overland to waters
of the United States. It may be necessary, in some cases, to collect
such liquids and pump or divert them back to the settling pond for
treatment. This requirement applies both during the active mining
season and at all other times until reclamation is completed.
4. Permit Part III.A.4. is intended to assure that the amount of
wastewater that is discharged is kept to a minimum.
5. The provisions of Permit Part III.A.5. would ensure that water
control devices are adequately maintained. This specifies that
structures should be inspected on a regular basis for any signs of
structural weakness or incipient failure. Whenever such weakness or
incipient failure becomes evident, repair or augmentation of the
structure to reasonably ensure against catastrophic failure shall be
made immediately.
B. Pursuant to CWA Section 402(a)(2) (40 CFR 122.44(k)(3),
additional BMPs are being proposed; these practices are reasonably
necessary either to achieve effluent limitations or to carry out the
Clean Water Act's goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants as
much as practicable and to maintain water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish among other uses.
In addition, the BMPs in Permit Part III.B. would apply to all
suction dredges covered by the modified permit. Suction dredges' unique
method of intake and displacement present unusual permitting issues.
They operate on the surface of flowing streams and rivers, only remove
material from stream bottoms, and process and quickly return mined
material to the stream bottom. For these reasons EPA has determined
that numeric effluent limitations are not necessary. Instead, the BMPs
in part III.B. of the permit have been developed. These BMPs, which are
supplemented by required turbidity monitoring designed to ensure that
the BMPs are being implemented properly, are, in this unique
circumstance, sufficient to implement the requirements of the CWA. That
is, these practices would ensure that the beneficial uses designated by
the state, chiefly the growth and propagation of fish and other aquatic
life, are adequately protected and justify the absence of more
stringent technology and water-quality based effluent limitations.
1. Permit Part III.A.6. would require reasonable steps be taken to
ensure that pollutants are not discharged after close of the mining
season. Any discharge of pollutants from the mine area to waters of the
United States, even when it is not being operated, in excess of permit
limits would constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act.
2. Permit Part III.A.7. would require that a minimum separation
distance be maintained between mine discharge points. Separation is
intended to prevent the creation of extended overlapping discharge
plumes and thereby ensure unimpaired fish habitat zones exist between
discharge points. Solids associated with the effluent from mechanical
operations effluent downstream and settles downstream among gravel and
rocks in the streambed. Too much silt and sand make it difficult for
the salmon to dig suitable gravel nests (redds) and can also smother
fish eggs already deposited. An applicant who would face difficulty
complying with this BMP may submit an application for an individual
permit.
3. Permit Part III.B.1. would require that dredging occur only in
the active stream channel except where the mining the active channel
would contribute to erosion of stream banks. Mining the active stream
channel generally should result in dredging spoils that are relatively
clean and should cause minimum turbidity when returned to the stream.
The material that runs through a suction dredge flows downstream and
settles among gravel and rocks in the streambed. As mentioned above,
too much silt and sand make it difficult for the salmon to dig suitable
gravel nests (redds) and can also smother fish eggs already deposited.
4. Wherever practicable, Permit Part III.B.2. requires that dredge
be set to discharge into a quiet pool where settling of dredge spoils
can occur more rapidly. This should minimize in-stream turbidity to the
general area of the dredging activity.
5. Permit Part III.B.3. would prohibit dredging within 500 feet of
any location where the miner knows fish spawn or have left eggs. This
BMP also is intended to protect the waters for propagation of fish. The
greatest single effect a suction dredge has on the environment is the
danger it poses to fish. The dredge pump forces water and gravel
through the nozzle and hose. Fish eggs taken up with gravel cannot
survive the shock, pressure, and battering and pounding that comes with
[[Page 3411]]
moving through the hose and sluice. If a fish egg should somehow
survive the hose and sluice, the chances for being buried in the gravel
at the right depth and in the correct gravel composition necessary for
incubation are nonexistent.
This BMP also would require miners to inform themselves of these
locations where fish eggs may exist. In addition to consulting the
regional office of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
miners may consult ``The Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fish,'' which lists the
streams in the State which require a Habitat permit from the ADF&G.
This catalog is quite extensive but is available for viewing at many
agencies including Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Anchorage Operations Office of EPA.
6. Likewise Permit Part III.B.4 would protect conditions in the
receiving water for the benefit of fish. Moving obstructions may cause
turbidity in excess of WQS. Instream obstructions also serve important
habitat purposes.
7. Permit Part III.B.5. would protect against an unnecessary and
unpermitted discharge of turbidity.
8. Permit Part III.B.6., like Permit Part III.A.7., would ensure
that turbidity will not impair fish habitat for long stretches of water
where mining operations are in close proximity to one another.
9. Permit Part III.B.7. emphasizes the Permit Part III.B.1. The
active stream channel is characterized by the absence of clay and silt.
Dredging activity in clay and silt can result in turbidity plumes
greatly in excess of the 500 foot limitation proposed in the general
permit.
10. The purpose of Permit Part III.B.8. would be to control the
potential discharge of pollutants, resulting from fuel spills, from
entering receiving waters.
Basis for Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Monitoring
All self-monitoring requirements were developed in consideration of
the remoteness of the mining operations, the magnitude of the
pollutants discharged, and the practicability of maintaining a valid
quality assurance program.
Monitoring provisions for turbidity, arsenic, settleable solids,
and flow (in Part II.C.) are included in the proposed modified general
permit. These provisions explain how, when, and where to collect such
samples.
EPA has prepared a daily checklist as an attachment to the proposed
modified general permit. Permittees would be required to maintain a
record of the information required by part II.C.1.b of the permit. The
attached checklist may be utilized to assist permittees in ensuring
compliance with that part. All compliance records would have to be
maintained for three years in accordance with part IV. of the permit.
In accordance with Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA may require
that such records be submitted to the agency. EPA intends to make
information requests in accordance with Section 308 when reasonably
requested by members of the public.
Daily Monitoring
a. Mechanical Operations. (1) For mechanical operations, the
measurement of settleable solids is an indication of overall treatment
efficiency. The modified general permit would require monitoring for
settleable solids once per day during periods of discharge. If there is
a discharge to waters of the United States, permittees would be
required to sample for settleable solids on a daily basis, even if
sluicing does not occur, because the operator is responsible at all
times for the condition of the wastewater entering the receiving
stream. Also, the results from settleable solids sampling can give the
operator an immediate indication of the overall effectiveness of the
treatment system and thus allow advanced planning for treatment system
maintenance.
(2) Daily effluent flow monitoring also would be required in the
proposed modified general permit. This requirement would provide data
for determining compliance with turbidity limits derived using mixing
zones and would allow EPA to assess the pollutant loading discharged
into the receiving water. On days when flow exceeds permit limits, a
permittee may take a turbidity sample. So long as turbidity remains
within permit limits, flow exceedances will not be considered to be
permit violations.
(3) The daily visual inspection provision in Part II.D.1. of the
proposed modified general permit would be required to assure against
discharges resulting from structural failure of berms, dikes, dams and
other water control structures. A visual inspection is an effective
tool for assuring proper operation and maintenance.
b. Suction Dredging. The modified permit would require daily visual
inspection of the area downstream of the suction dredge during
operation. If turbidity is observed beyond 500 feet downstream, the
permittee would be required to modify its operations to meet the permit
limitation. If the operations could not be modified to meet the limit,
the operation would not be authorized.
This requirement is based on research published in the scientific
literature (Griffith and Andrews 1981, Hassler et al. 1986, Harvey
1986, Huber and Blanchet 1992, Thomas 1985) and on monitoring done by
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) (Ron McAllister,
ADEC, personal communication). In most cases, water quality recovered
rapidly below the dredge. The daily visual inspection during operation,
combined with the BMPs in part III.B. of the permit should assure that
the water quality standards are met.
2. Seasonal Monitoring--Turbidity and Arsenic
Permittees would be required to monitor for turbidity and arsenic
once for each calendar month in which there is a discharge and at least
three times per season. The permittee should space sampling as evenly
throughout the mining season as possible. If the permittee has fewer
than three discharges per season, the permittee would be required to
sample each discharge. If the permittee has fewer than three discharges
per season, the permittee should take samples of each discharge.
For permittees who have not obtained a site-specific turbidity
limit under part II.A.1.c. of the permit, background samples for
turbidity, taken immediately upstream of the effluent discharge point,
would be required. Effluent turbidity samples would also be required.
For permittees who did obtain a site-specific limit, only samples of
the effluent would be required.
Samples for monitoring purposes would be required to be taken
during sluicing or discharge at a time when the operation has reached
equilibrium. For example, samples should be taken when sluice paydirt
loading and effluent discharge are fairly constant.
B. Reporting
The following reporting requirements apply to all permittees with
the exception of suction dredges with intake hoses of four inches or
less.
1. Reporting of effluent violations would be required in writing
within a reasonable time period. The information required by Attachment
A must be included. This is found in Permit Part IV.G.
2. Reporting of visual violations from suction dredges would be
required in
[[Page 3412]]
writing within a reasonable time period. This is found in Permit Part
IV.G.
3. The results of all monitoring or notice that no discharge or no
mining would be reported to EPA by November 30 of each year. This is
found in Permit Part IV.B.
4. Reporting of the results of arsenic monitoring: As a result of
the increasing use of water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL) in
NPDES permits, a number of permits now contain limits that fall below
the capability of current analytical technology to detect and/or
quantify specific parameters. EPA's draft ``National Guidance for the
Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/Quantification levels''
(March 1994) outlines objectives for achieving consistency in
establishing permit pollutant limitations for pollutants that are set
below detection levels, taking into consideration the capabilities and
uncertainties of currently available analytical methodologies.
EPA's guidance specifies that, regardless of the ability to measure
to the level of the WQBEL, the value provided for the maximum and
average effluent limits in the permit should be expressed as the
calculated WQBELs. The inability to measure to the necessary level of
detection is addressed by establishing the Minimum Level (ML1) as
the quantification level for use in laboratory analysis and for
reporting Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for compliance
evaluations. In the absence of promulgated MLs, Interim MLs should be
used. EPA believes that Interim ML values can be derived most
effectively as a multiple of the existing Method Detection Limit (MDL)
value for a given analyte. The Interim ML is approximated by 3.18 times
the published MDL. The Interim ML is then rounded to the nearest whole
number for the metal analyte and corresponding specific analytical
method approved under Section 304(h). In some cases, MDLs for several
metals have not been established. When neither the ML nor the MDL is
available, 3.18 times the best estimate of the detection level should
be used.
\1\ Quantification of measurements below the ML are not
acceptable since it requires extrapolation of calibration data to a
level below the range of data used to make the original calibration.
For a detailed description of these terms, definitions, and interim
measures, please refer to EPA's Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control, March 1991, page 111, and the draft
``National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement
of Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical
Detection/Quantification levels'' (March 3, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discharge of arsenic in excess of the effluent limit is not
authorized by this permit. Because the water quality based effluent
limit for arsenic (.18 g/l) is below the MDL of 1 g/l
using EPA Method 206.2, EPA has derived an interim minimum level of 3
g/l (3.18 x 1 g/l=3.18 rounded to 3) as the
quantifiable level. EPA intends to consider using enforcement
discretion with regard to arsenic discharges reported below the
quantifiable level. For purposes of reporting analytical results for
arsenic in the DMR, results below the MDL will be reported as ``less
than 1 g/l''. Actual analytical results shall be reported on
the DMR when the results are greater than the MDL. The permittee must
also specify in the comment column of the DMR that Method 206.2 was
used for analysis.
VI. Other Requirements
A. Spill Prevention Control and Containment (SPCC) Plan
Part III.C. of the proposed modified general permit was established
in accordance with Part 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). The purpose of this
requirement would be to control the potential discharge of pollutants,
resulting from fuel spills, from entering receiving waters.
B. Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) previously provided EPA
with a species list for the state of Alaska. The recommended protection
measures for the species of concern during the nesting period prohibits
alterations of limited, high quality habitat which could detrimentally
and significantly reduce prey availability. Because the proposed
modified general permit is written to protect aquatic life or human
health criteria (whichever is more stringent), EPA previously
determined that no alterations of habitat due to water discharges
authorized by this permit should occur. Because of this, EPA has
determined that formal consultation for Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act is not necessary for existing facilities. EPA will provide
FWS with copies of the proposed modified general permit for
concurrence.
Environmental Assessments would be completed for each new source
discharge as is stated in Part I.A.3. of the modified general permit.
Any consultation necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act
would be performed at the time the Environmental Assessment is
submitted.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities
by these draft general NPDES permits under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements
of the proposed modified general permit have already been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget under the submissions made for the
NPDES permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
VII. Storm Exemption
Part III.D. of the proposed permit would establish a storm
exemption provision to authorize exceedances of technology-based
effluent limitations and standards in the permit so long as the
permittee meets certain design and operational criteria. This provision
reflects regulations in 40 CFR 440.141(b).
This provision would allow for the unavoidable exceedance of
technology-based effluent limitations during storms of intensity
greater than or equal to a 5-year, 6-hour storm event. The storm
exemption will be allowed provided that (1) the settling ponds are
designed, constructed, and maintained to contain the volume of process
water generated during four hours of normal operation plus the drainage
water resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour storm event, (2) the operator
takes all reasonable steps possible to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize overflow from the settling ponds, (3) the
permittee complies with the BMPs in Part III.A.1.-.5 of the proposed
permit, and (4) the operator complies with all the notification
requirements for bypasses and upsets as established in Parts III.G. and
H. of the proposed permit. Part III.D. of the proposed permit
establishes the specific conditions which must be met in order to be
eligible for the storm exemption.
This exemption is designed to provide an affirmative defense to an
enforcement action. Therefore, the operator has the burden of
demonstrating to the appropriate authority that the above conditions
have been met.
VIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Pursuant to Section 301 of the CWA, NSPS [40 CFR 440.144] were
promulgated for gold placer mine facilities. NSPS apply to new mines
determined to be new sources by virtue of their activities occurring
after
[[Page 3413]]
promulgation of the rule (May 24, 1988). The NSPS for gold placer
mining facilities are based on the same treatment technology as BAT,
which consists of simple settling plus recirculation of all process
water. BAT is based on the best demonstrated technology that is
available for treating gold placer mine wastewater, those mines which
are new sources will not be subject to controls more stringent than
those applicable to existing mines.
In accordance with Section 511(c)(1) of the CWA, NPDES permits for
new sources are subject to the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires that, prior to the issuance of an
NPDES permit to a new source facility, an Environmental Assessment (EA)
must be prepared to determine the potential for any significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment resulting from operation of the
new source. Permit part I.E.1. would require that new facilities submit
a notice of intent by January 1 of the year of discharge. This will
allow adequate time to complete EAs for each new source prior to the
mining season. If the EA indicates that significant adverse
environmental impacts may occur, then the applicant would be required
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, if the EA
indicates that significant impacts are not anticipated, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSI) would be issued and the facility would be
covered by the general permit. The FNSI may be based, in part, on
required permit conditions or mitigation measures necessary to make the
recommended alternative environmentally acceptable.
IX. State Certification
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act requires that an NPDES permit
contain conditions which ensure compliance with applicable State water
quality standards or limitations. The limitations for turbidity were
established based to implement WQS. Section 401 requires that States
certify that Federally issued permits are in compliance with State law.
No permits can be issued until the requirements of Section 401 are
satisfied.
The modified general permit would apply to operations discharging
to waters of the State of Alaska. EPA is requesting State officials
review and provide appropriate certification to these draft permits
pursuant to 40 CFR 124.53.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. and
its implementing regulations [15 CFR Part 930] requires that any
federally licensed activity affecting the coastal zone with an approved
Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) be determined to be consistent
with the CZMP. EPA is requesting State officials review and make a
determination whether the proposed modified general permit are
consistent with State policy.
X. References
Ashton, W. and R. Carlson. 1984. Determinations of Seasonal
Frequency and Durational Aspects of Stream Flow With Regard to Fish
Passage Through Roadway Drainage Structures. Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
Griffith, J.S. and D.A. Andrews. 1981. Effects of a small suction
dredge on fishes and aquatic invertebrates in Idaho streams. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 1:21-28.*
Hassler, T.J., W.L. Somer and G. R. Stern. 1986. Impacts of suction
dredge mining on anadromous fish, invertebrates and habitat in
Canyon Creek, California. Calif. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit., Humboldt
State University, Arcata, California, Coop. Agreement No. 14-16-
0009-1547, Work Order No. 2. 135 pages.*
Harvey, B.C. 1986. Effects of suction gold dredging on fish and
invertebrates in two California streams. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 6:401-409.*
Huber, C. and D. Blanchet. 1992. Water quality cumulative effects of
placer mining on the Chugach National Forest, Kenai Peninsula, 1988-
1990. U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region.
74 pages.*
McCleneghan, K. and R.E. Johnson. 1983. Suction dredge gold mining
in the mother lode region of California. California Department of
Fish and Game, Environmental Services Branch, Administrative Report
83-1.*
Minshall, G.W., D.A. Andrews and C. Y. Manual-Faler. 1983.
Application of island biogeographic theory to streams:
macroinvertebrate recolonization of the Teton River, Idaho. In J.R.
Barnes and G. W. Minshall editors Stream Ecology: Application and
testing of general ecological theory. Plenum Press, New York.*
Scannel, P.O. 1988. Effects of elevated sediment levels from placer
mining on survival and behavior of immature Arctic grayling.
Master's thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. 93
pages.*
Somer, W.L. and T.J. Hassler. 1992. Effects of suction-dredge gold
mining on benthic invertebrates in a Northern California Stream.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:244-252.*
Thomas, V.G. 1985. Experimentally determined impacts of a small,
suction gold dredge on a Montana stream. North American Journal
Fisheries Management 5:480-488.*
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Water Quality Study: Arkansas
River above Salida, Colorado. U.S Army Corps of Engineers,
Albuquerque District, P.O. Box 1580, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Regulatory strategy for
controlling small commercial and recreational placer mining, draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, 2800
Crystal Drive, Crystal Station, Crystal City, Virginia 20202. EPA
Contract No. 68-C8-0066, W.A. 30. SAIC Project No. 1-833-03-630-00.
73 pages.*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category--Gold Placer
Mining Subcategory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Industrial Technology Division,
Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA 440/1-88-061.
* Literature cited in literature research project.
Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System For Alaskan Placer Miners
[General Permit No.: AKG-37-0000]
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33
U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
P.L. 100-4, the ``Act''.
Owners and operators of facilities engaged in the processing of
placer gold are authorized to discharge to waters of the United States,
in accordance with effluent limitation, monitoring requirements, and
other conditions set forth herein.
A Copy of This General Permit Must Be Kept at the Site Where Discharges
Occur
[Facility Name]
[Receiving Water]
The orginal version of this permit became effective June 30, 1994.
This permit as modified shall become effective on [date of publication
in the Federal Register].
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire on June
30, 1999.
Informational Copy Only
Phil Millam, Director, Office of Water, Region 10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Table of Contents
Cover Page
I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations
C. Additional Requirements
[[Page 3414]]
D. Prohibitions
E. Requiring an Individual Permit
F. Notification Requirements
G. Permit Expiration
II. Effluent Limitations
A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional Sluicing)
B. Suction Dredges
C. Monitoring Requirements
III. Management Practices
A. Mechanical Operations
B. Suction Dredges
C. Other Requirements: Mechanical Operations
D. Storm Exemption
IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
C. Monitoring Procedures
D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
E. Records Contents
F. Retention of Records
G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
I. Toxic Pollutants
VI. General Requirements
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
B. Planned Changes
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
D. Permit Actions
E. Duty to Reapply
F. Duty to Provide Information
G. Other Information
H. Signatory Requirements
I. Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Property Rights
L. Severability
M. State Laws
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
O. Inspection and Entry
VII. Reopener Clause
VIII. Definitions
Attachment 1: Turbidity Sampling Protocol
Attachment 2: Arsenic Sampling Protocol
Attachment 3: Settleable Solids Sampling Protocol and Analysis
Protocol
Attachment 4: Sample Daily Monitoring Checklist
I. Coverage Under This Permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
1. Existing Facilities (those facilities having individual National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permits or coverage
under the existing Alaska placer miner general permit): Upon the
submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to gain coverage under this
permit, existing facilities which meet the criteria for coverage under
Part I of this permit will be granted coverage according to Permit Part
F.4.
2. Pending Applications: Upon submittal of an NOI, all facilities
which have submitted applications in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a)
and which meet the criteria for coverage under this permit will be
granted coverage according to Permit Part F.4.
3. New Facilities: New facilities that are determined to be new
sources under the CWA will be required to have an Environmental
Assessment (EA) completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). A finding of no significant impact (FNSI) by EPA is
necessary prior to receiving coverage under this permit. A FNSI will
become effective only after the public has had notice of, and an
opportunity to comment on, the FNSI including either the accompanying
Environmental Assessment or a summary of it, and the EPA has fully
considered all public comments submitted, pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 6.400(d). If there may be a significant impact, the facility will
require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS will be issued
only after public notice and an opportunity for public comments on a
draft EIS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 6.403(a) and Sec. 1503.1(a).
4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that contemplate expanding
shall submit a new NOI that describes the new discharge. The current
permit will be terminated and a new permit, reflecting the changes,
issued in its place if the facility meets all the necessary
requirements of coverage.
5. Coastal Zone Facilities: Facilities located in the coastal zone
as determined by the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act shall submit,
with their Notice of Intent (NOI), an individual consistency
determination from Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC)
unless ADGC makes an overall determination on this General Permit after
its issuance.
B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations
1. Facilities that mine and process gold placer ores using gravity
separation methods to recover the gold metal contained in the ore.
a. Open-cut gold placer mines except those open-cut mines that mine
less than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per mining season.
b. Mechanical dredge gold placer mines (not suction dredges) except
those dredges that remove less than 50,000 cubic yards of placer ore
per mining season or dredge in open waters.
2. Suction dredges with intake hoses of less than or equal to 8
inches.
C. Additional Requirements
1. Many streams and stream reaches in Alaska have been designated
as part of the federal wild and scenic rivers system or as Conservation
System Units (CSUs) by the federal government. Permittees should
contact the district offices of the federal agencies that administer
the designated area for additional restrictions that may apply to
operating within the area.
2. Many streams in Alaska where placer mining occurs have been
designated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as
anadromous fish streams. Placer mining activities in these streams
require an ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit which may include additional
restrictions. The ``Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for the
Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fish'' lists the streams
in the State which require prior ADF&G authorization. In addition,
placer mining activities in resident fish streams require an ADF&G Fish
Habitat Permit if the proposed activity will block or impede the
efficient passage of fish. Permittees operating in anadromous or
resident fish streams should contact the ADF&G to determine permitting
requirements and additional restrictions that may apply.
D. Prohibitions
1. Discharges from the following beneficiation processes are not
authorized under this permit: Mercury amalgamation, cyanidation, froth
floatation, heap and vat leaching.
2. This general permit does not apply to facilities located or
proposed to be located in State Parks, National Parks and Preserves,
National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, National Wildlife
Refuges, National Wilderness Areas and waters designated under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1271-1287.
3. Discharges from hydraulicking, as defined in Part VIII.F, are
not authorized under this permit.
E. Requiring an Individual Permit
1. The Regional Administrator may require any person authorized by
this permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit when:
a. The single discharge or the cumulative number of discharges is/
are a significant contributor of pollution;
b. The discharger is not in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit;
c. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants
applicable to the point source;
[[Page 3415]]
d. Effluent limitations guidelines are subsequently promulgated for
the point sources covered by the general permit;
e. A Water Quality Management plan containing requirements
applicable to such point sources is approved; or
f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS) is required under Section
304(L) of the Act, or
g. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and corresponding wasteload
allocation has been completed for a waterbody or a segment of a
waterbody, or
h. A review of the facility shows that it is subject to the State
of Alaska's anti-degradation policy.
i. There are other Federal or State legislation, rules or
regulations pertaining to a site directly or indirectly related to
water quality.
2. The Regional Administrator will deny coverage under this permit
in the following circumstances:
(a) a land management agency submits a request that general permit
coverage be denied to EPA within thirty (30) days of the agency's
receipt of an NOI; and,
(b) the land management agency's request includes proposed
additional or revised permit terms which the requesting agency
reasonably believes--based upon evidence attached to or cited in the
request--are necessary to protect the natural values of the affected
location; and,
(c) the land management agency's request concerns a person who
either;
i. seeks to discharge into U.S. waters located in National
Recreation Areas, Sanctuaries, or Critical Habitat Areas, or in State
Refuges, Preserves, Sanctuaries, Recreation Areas, or Critical Habitat
Areas; or,
ii. is in significant noncompliance with the terms and conditions
of the most recent applicable NPDES permit; or,
iii. intends to discharge into waters designated as impaired or
polluted under the Clean Water Act.
Any person denied coverage under this part must apply for and
obtain coverage under either (1) an individual permit, or (2) another
applicable watershed-specific general permit. Upon receipt of any such
application, EPA will determine whether the permit terms requested by
the land management agency should be included in the applicable permit.
3. The Regional Administrator will notify the operator in writing
by certified mail that a permit application is required. If an operator
fails to submit, in a timely manner, an individual NPDES permit
application as required, then any applicability of this general permit
to the individual NPDES Permittee is automatically terminated at the
end of the day specified for application submittal.
4. Any owner or operator authorized by this permit may request to
be excluded from the coverage of this permit by applying for an
individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit an individual
application (Form 1 and Form 2C or 2D) with reasons supporting the
request to the Regional Administrator no later than 90 days after the
effective date of the permit.
5. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an owner or
operator otherwise covered by this permit, the applicability of this
permit to the facility is automatically terminated on the effective
date of the individual permit.
6. When an individual NPDES permit is denied to an owner or
operator otherwise covered by this permit, the Permittee is
automatically reinstated under this permit on the date of such denial,
unless otherwise specified by the Regional Administrator. A new
facility can receive coverage under this general permit by submitting
an NOI. See Permit Part I.A.3. for details.
7. A source excluded from a general permit solely because it
already has an individual permit may request that the individual permit
be revoked and that it be covered by the general permit. Upon
revocation of the individual permit, the general permit shall apply to
the source.
F. Notification Requirements
1. Owners or operators of facilities authorized by this permit,
except suction dredges with intake hoses of less than or equal to 4
inches, shall submit an NOI to be covered by this permit. The
information required for a complete NOI is in Appendix A of this
permit. Notification must be made:
a. within 90 days of issuance of this permit; or
b. by January 1 of the year of discharge from a new facility or a
facility established since 1988 subject to New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) that has not previously been covered by a permit; or
c. 90 days prior to discharge from a new facility not subject to
NSPS; or
d. 90 days prior to the expiration of an existing individual
permit, or
e. 90 days prior to discharge for any other facilities.
Authorization to discharge requires written notification from EPA that
coverage has been granted and that a specific permit number has been
assigned to the operation.
2. The NOI shall be signed by the owner or other signatory
authority in accordance with Permit Part VI.H. (Signatory
Requirements), and a copy shall be retained on site in accordance with
Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of Records). The address for NOI
submission to EPA is: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, Washington 98101
3. A copy of the NOI must also be sent to:
a. the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The
address is: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 610
University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 and,
b. the Federal, State, or local agency that manages or owns the
land in which the mine is located or proposed to be located. The
addresses are:
Anchorage Area
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West 7th
Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7599
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor
Rd.,Anchorage, AK 99503
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 605 West 4th
Avenue, Suite 104, Anchorage, AK 99501
Fairbanks Area
State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game, 1300 College Road,
Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1150 University
Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 101 12th
Avenue, Box 19, Fairbanks, AK 99701
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 250 Cushman, Suite
1A, Fairbanks, AK 99701
Glennallen Area
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 147,
Glennallen, AK 99588
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Wrangell St. Alias,
P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, AK 99573
Juneau Area
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage
Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 21089,
Juneau, AK 99802-1089
Nome Area
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 925,
Nome, AK 99762
[[Page 3416]]
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 220, Nome,
AK 99762
Tok Area
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 309,
Tok, AK 99780
c. For suction dredges, a copy of the NOI must also be sent to the
regional office of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) nearest
the location of the dredge. The addresses are:
Anchorage Area, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518
Glennallen Area, P.O. Box 47, Glennallen, AK 99588-0047
Juneau Area, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526
Nome Area, Pouch 1148, Nome, AK 99762
Tok Area, P.O. Box 779, Tok, AK 99780
4. A copy of the general permit will be sent to the Permittee,
other than Permittees of suction dredges with intake hoses less than or
equal to 4 inches, when it is determined that the facility can be
granted coverage under this general permit. If it is determined that
coverage cannot be granted under this permit, the applicant will be
informed of this in writing.
5. The owner or operator of a suction dredge with an intake hose
less than or equal to 4 inches and who is authorized by this permit
shall submit to EPA at the address in Permit Part I.F.2. a letter of
intent to be covered by this permit. The letter shall include the
following:
a. the name, address, and telephone number of the owner and
operator;
b. the locations (e.g. waterbody name and segment) where, and dates
when, the owner or operator intend to operate the suction dredge;
c. a brief description of the suction dredge, including the size of
the intake hose; and,
d. a statement that the owner and operator have read the provisions
of this permit and intend to comply with the permit provisions that
apply. The letter of intent shall be submitted to the EPA no later than
three weeks before the owner or operator intends to begin operating the
suction dredge.
G. Permit Expiration
This permit will expire on June 30, 1999. For facilities submitting
a new NOI 90 days prior to expiration of this general permit, the
conditions of the expired permit continue in force until the effective
date of a new permit.
II. Effluent Limitations
A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional Sluicing)
[Not including Suction Dredges]
During the term of this permit, no wastewater discharges are
authorized except as specified below.
1. Effluent Limitations.
a. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged shall not
exceed the volume of infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters
which is in excess of the make-up water required for operation of the
beneficiation process.
b. The wastewater discharged shall not exceed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent characteristic Instantaneous maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids......................... 0.2 ml/l
Turbidity................................. 5 NTUs above natural
background*
Arsenic, Total Recoverable................ 0.18 ug/l
Effluent Flow............................. [Flow reported in NOI**]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Subject to Turbidity Mixing Zone outlined in Permit Part II.A.1.c.
** See Part II.A.1.d. for details.
c. Permittees may request a modified turbidity limit based upon a
mixing zone approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) pursuant to 18 AAC 70.032. EPA will approve a
modified turbidity limit proposed by ADEC under this General Permit if
the modified limit and resulting mixing zone are consistent with the
Clean Water Act, EPA's regulations, and 18 AAC 70.032, and provided
that:
i. the modified turbidity limit does not exceed 1500 NTU's;
ii. the modified turbidity limit does not cause turbidity levels to
exceed 100 NTU's in at least one-half of the cross-sectional area of
resident and anadroumous fish migration corridors;
iii. the ``point of complete mixing'' as referenced in 18 AAC
0.032(d), shall be calculated using (1) the 10 year, 30-day low flow
(30Q10) as the chronic criteria design flow for the protection of
aquatic life; and (2) zero, as the value for upstream turbidity;
iv. the modified turbidity limit does not result in a mixing zone
in an area of anadromous fish spawning or resident fish spawning redds
for the fish species listed in 18 AAC 70.032(d)(3)(D)(ii); and,
v. the public was provided reasonable notice of, and an opportunity
to comment on, the modified turbidity limit and associated mixing zone,
including site-specific assessments used to calculate the limit and
zone, prior to their approval by ADEC.
d. The volume of discharge shall not exceed the volume reported by
the permittee on the NOI (Appendix A). If the permittee exceeds that
volume, EPA will not consider the permittee in violation of the flow
limit if:
i. the permittee submits to EPA turbidity samples taken during the
period of the flow exceedence; and,
ii. those samples show that the permittee's discharge did not
exceed the turbidity limit established in Part II.A.1.b or Part
II.A.1.c., whichever is applicable.
The permittee must report all exceedences of the flow limit,
together with any turbidity data which the permittee intends to use to
avoid being considered in violation of the flow limit, pursuant to the
reporting requirements in Part IV.G.
2. Effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new water
is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new water.
B. Suction Dredging
1. At all points in the receiving stream 500 feet downstream of the
dredge's discharge point, the maximum allowable increase in turbidity
over the natural receiving stream turbidity while operating is 5 NTUs.
2. A visual increase in turbidity (any cloudiness or muddiness) 500
feet downstream of the suction dredge during operations would be
considered a violation of the 5 NTU limit.
3. If noticeable turbidity does occur 500 feet downstream of the
work site, operation of the suction dredge must decrease or cease so
that a violation as defined above does not exist.
C. Monitoring Requirements
1. Mechanical Operations. a. During the period beginning on the
effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date,
the following monitoring shall be conducted:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent characteristic Monitoring location Monitoring frequency Sample type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids (ml/l)............ effluent............... once per day each day Grab.
of discharge.
Turbidity (NTU)..................... effluent............... 3 times per season *.. Grab.
background............. 3 times per season *.. Grab.
Arsenic (g/l).............. effluent............... 3 times per season *.. .........................
[[Page 3417]]
Grab **
Flow (gpm).......................... effluent............... * * *................. Instantaneous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Part II C.1.c. & d. for details.
** Analyzed by EPA Method 206.2 with a detection limit of 1 g/l.
*** See Part II. C.1.f. for details.
b. Inspection Program. The Permittee shall institute a
comprehensive inspection program to facilitate proper operation and
maintenance of the recycle system and the wastewater treatment system.
As a part of the comprehensivie inspection program, the permittee shall
record the information requested on Attachment 4 to this permit on a
daily basis. The Permittee shall conduct a visual inspection of the
site once per day, while on site, during the mining season. The
Permittee shall maintain records of all information resulting from any
inspections in accordance with part IV.F. of this permit. These records
shall include an evaluation of the condition of all water control
devices such as diversion structures and berms and all solids retention
structures including, but not limited to, berms, dikes, pond
structures, and dams. The records shall also include an assessment of
the presence of sediment buildup within the settling ponds. The
Permittee shall examine all ponds for the occurrence of short
circuiting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring. Permittees that have obtained a site-
specific turbidity limit under Permit Part II.A.1.c. shall take at
least one turbidity sample for each calendar month in which there is a
discharge and at least three turbidity samples for the entire mining
season, even if the Permittee has a discharge in fewer then three
calendar months. Those Permittees that do not obtain a site-specific
turbidity limit shall take at least one turbidity sample set (i.e. the
discharge and background samples referenced in Part IV.A.) for each
calendar month in which there is a discharge and at least three
turbidity sample sets for the entire mining season, even if the
Permittee has a discharge in fewer than three calendar months. Both
samples of a sample set shall be taken within a reasonable time frame.
A Permittee who has had less than three days of discharge over the
course of the mining season, must submit one sample or sample set for
each day of discharge.
All samples must be taken and stored in the manner set forth in
Attachment 1. All sample results shall be reported on the annual
Discharge Monitoring report (DMR). Monitoring shall be conducted in
accordance with accepted analytical procedures.
d. Arsenic Monitoring. Arsenic samples shall be representative of
the discharge and shall be taken at a point prior to entering the
receiving stream. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with
accepted analytical procedures. The Permittee shall report the sample
results on the DMR. See attachment 2 for sampling protocol. Because the
water quality based effluent limit for arsenic (.18 g/l) is
below the MDL (1 g/l) using EPA Method 206.2, EPA has derived
an interim minimum level of 3 g/l (3.18 x 1 g/l =
3.18 rounded to 3) as the quantifiable level. For purposes of reporting
analytical results for arsenic in the DMR, results below the MDL will
be reported as ``less than 1 g/l''. Actual analytical results
shall be reported on the DMR when the results are greater than the MDL.
The permittee must also specify in the comment column of the DMR that
Method 206.2 was used for analysis.
The Permittee shall take at least one arsenic sample for each
calendar month in which there is a discharge and at least three arsenic
samples for the entire mining season, even if the Permittee has a
discharge in fewer than three calendar months. A Permittee who has had
less then three days of discharge over the course of the mining season,
must submit one sample for each day of discharge.
All samples must be taken and stored in the manner set forth in
Attachment 2.
e. Settleable Solids Monitoring. Settleable solids samples shall be
representative of the discharge and shall be taken at a point prior to
entering the receiving stream. Monitoring shall be conducted in
accordance with accepted analytical procedures (Standard Methods, 17th
Edition, 1989). The Permittee shall report the daily sample results on
the annual DMR. See attachment 3 for sampling and analysis protocol.
Attachment 4 provides an example of how monitoring results may be
recorded and reported.
f. Flow Monitoring. Effluent flow shall be measured at the
discharge prior to entering the receiving water. Effluent flow shall be
measured at least once per day, for continuous discharges, or once
during each discharge event if discharges are intermittent. The
operator must also estimate seepage discharging to waters of the United
States each day that seepage occurs. Effluent flow and seepage flow
shall be measured in gallons per minute (gpm). The flow and seepage
measurements, the number of discharge events, and the duration of each
discharge event shall be reported in the annual DMR for each day of the
mining season. For each day in which the permittee fails to monitor
effluent flow when required by this permit, the permittee will not be
considered in violation of this permit if:
i. the permittee submits to EPA turbidity samples taken during each
day in which flow was not monitored; and,
ii. those turbidity samples show that the permittee's discharge did
not exceed the turbidity effluent limit in Part II.A.1.b.
The permittee must report all failures to comply with the flow
monitoring requirement, together with any turbidity data which the
permittee intends to use to avoid being considered in violation of that
requirement, pursuant to the reporting requirements in Part IV.G.
2. Suction Dredges. a. Suction Dredge operations shall visually
monitor for turbidity as described in Permit Part II.B. once per day of
operation, in the following manner: Operators shall mark the point 500
feet downstream of the point of discharge from the suction dredge. With
this 500 foot point marked, individuals who conduct visual monitoring
shall observe the turbidity plume, where visible, immediately
downstream until they reach either the point at which the turbidity
plume is no longer visible, or the 500 foot mark, which ever point
comes first. Monitors shall record daily all turbidity monitoring
results. The Permittee shall maintain records of all information
resulting from any visual inspections.
b. The Permittee will report the period of suction dredging on the
DMR. Visual violation occurrences will also be reported on the DMR
along with the measures taken to comply with the provisions of Permit
Part II.B.3. The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to
suction dredges with intake hoses of less than or equal to 4 inches.
[[Page 3418]]
III. Management Practices
A. Mechanical Operations
1. The flow of surface waters (i.e., creek, river, or stream) into
the plant site shall be interrupted and these waters diverted around
and away to prevent incursion into the plant site.
2. Berms, including any pond walls, dikes, low dams, and similar
water retention structures shall be constructed in a manner such that
they are reasonably expected to reject the passage of water.
3. Measures shall be taken to assure that pollutant materials
removed from the process water and wastewater streams will be retained
in storage areas and not discharged or released to the waters of the
United States.
4. The amount of new water allowed to enter the plant site for use
in material processing shall be limited to the minimum amount required
as makeup water.
5. All water control devices such as diversion structures and berms
and all solids retention structures such as berms, dikes, pond
structures, and dams shall be reasonably maintained to continue their
effectiveness and to protect from failure.
6. The operator shall take whatever reasonable steps are
appropriate to assure that, after the mining season, all unreclaimed
mine areas, including ponds, are in a condition which will not cause
degradation to the receiving waters over those resulting from natural
causes.
7. During each mining season, a permittee may not discharge into
the receiving stream within five hundred feet of any upstream or
downstream placer mining discharges which are occurring or have already
occurred that season. Nor may a permittee discharge at a point within
five hundred feet of the downstream edge of a mixing zone granted for
any upstream placer mining discharges.
B. Suction Dredges
1. Dredging is permitted only within the active stream channel.
Dredging within the active stream channel which results in undercutting
or excavating, or which otherwise results in erosion of a stream bank,
is prohibited.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 3 below, wherever practicable,
the dredge shall be set to discharge into a quiet pool, where settling
of dredge spoils can occur more rapidly.
3. Dredging and discharging are prohibited within 500 feet of
locations where fish are known to spawn or where fish eggs are known to
exist at the time dredging occurs. Each Permittee shall consult the
regional office of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) for the
region in which the Permittee proposes to operate a dredge in order to
obtain the information necessary to comply with this BMP. Each
Permittee shall report the information obtained from ADFG, and the name
and title of the official contacted, to EPA concurrently with the NOI.
4. Winches or other motorized equipment shall not be used to move
boulders, logs, or other natural instream obstructions.
5. No wheeled or tracked equipment may be used instream.
6. Suction dredges shall not operate (including discharge) within
1000 feet of another dredging operation occurring simultaneously or
known to have occurred within the previous 12 months.
7. Dredging of silt and clay is prohibited.
8. Care shall be taken by the operator during refueling of the
dredge to prevent spillage into public waters or to groundwater.
C. Other Requirements: Mechanical Operations
The operator shall maintain fuel handling and storage facilities in
a manner which will prevent the discharge of fuel oil into the
receiving waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall be prepared and
updated as necessary in accordance with provisions of 40 CFR Part 112
for facilities storing 660 gallons in a single container above ground,
1320 gallons in the aggregate above ground, or 42,000 gallons below
ground.
The Permittee shall indicate on the DMR if an SPCC Plan is
necessary and in place at the site and if changes were made to the Plan
over the previous year.
D. Storm Exemption
The Permittee may qualify for a storm exemption from the
technology-based effluent limitation in Permit Part II.A.1.a. of this
NPDES general permit if the following conditions are met:
1. The treatment system is designed, constructed and maintained to
contain the maximum volume of untreated process wastewater which would
be discharged, stored, contained and used or recycled by the
beneficiation process into the treatment system during a 4-hour
operating period without an increase in volume from precipitation or
infiltration, plus the maximum volume of water runoff (drainage waters)
resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour precipitation event. In computing the
maximum volume of water which would result from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event, the operator must include the volume which should
result from the plant site contributing runoff to the individual
treatment facility.
2. The operator takes all reasonable steps to maintain treatment of
the wastewater and minimize the amount of overflow.
3. The source is in compliance with the Management Practices in
Permit Part III.A.
4. The operator complies with the notification requirements of
Permit Parts IV.G. and IV.H.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Mechanical Operations and
Suction Dredges With Intake Hoses of Greater Than 4 Inches
A. Representative Sampling
All samples for monitoring purposes shall be representative of the
monitored activity, 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine compliance with
permit effluent limitations, ``grab'' samples shall be taken as
established under Permit Part II.D. Specifically, effluent samples for
settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic shall be collected from the
settling pond outlet or other treatment systems' outlet prior to
discharge to the receiving stream. Additionally, turbidity background
samples shall be taken at a point that is representative of the
receiving stream just above the permittee's mining operation. Those who
receive a site-specific turbidity limit, pursuant to Permit Part
II.A.1.c., are not required to take background turbidity samples.
Samples for arsenic and turbidity monitoring must be taken during
sluicing at a time when the operation has reached equilibrium. For
example, samples should be taken when sluice paydirt loading and
effluent discharge are constant.
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results shall be summarized each month and reported on
EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR). The DMR shall be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section
WD-135, Seattle, Washington 98101-3188, no later than November 30 each
year.
If there is no mining activity during the year or no wastewater
discharge to a receiving stream, the Permittee shall notify EPA of
these facts no later than November 30 of each year.
The DMR shall also be sent to the ADEC office located in Fairbanks.
The address can be found in permit part I.F.3.
[[Page 3419]]
C. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified
in this permit.
D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR
part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
E. Records Contents
Records of monitoring information shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
4. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
6. The results of such analyses.
F. Retention of Records
The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and all original
strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data
used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at
least three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or
application. This period may be extended by request of the Director or
ADEC at any time. Data collected on-site, copies of DMRs, and a copy of
this NPDES permit must be maintained on-site during the duration of
activity at the permitted location.
G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
1. Any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment
shall be reported as soon as the Permittee becomes aware of the
circumstance. A written submission shall also be provided in the
shortest reasonable period of time after the Permittee becomes aware of
the occurrence.
2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall also be
reported in writing in the shortest reasonable period of time after the
Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation
in the permit (See Permit Part V.G., Bypass of Treatment Facilities.);
or
b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit
(See Permit Part V.H., Upset Conditions.).
c. Any violation of any of the requirements of this Permit.
3. The written submission shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it
has not been corrected;
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance;
e. Any turbidity data submitted pursuant to Parts II.A.1.d.
(Effluent flow limit) and II.C.f (Flow Monitoring); and
f. Mechanical operations must also provide the information required
by Attachment 4 for each date of the period of noncompliance.
4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case
basis if an oral report has been received within 24 hours by the
Enforcement Section in Seattle, Washington, by phone, (206) 553-1213.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Permit Part
IV.B., Reporting of Monitoring Results.
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported in Permit
Part IV.G. above shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports
for Permit Part IV.B. are submitted. The reports shall contain the
information listed in Permit Part IV.G.3.
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds
for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and
reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal
application. The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Director
and ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity
which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
1. Administrative Penalty. The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be subject to an administrative
penalty, not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.
2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or
405 of the Act shall be subject to a civil penalty, not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation.
3. Criminal Penalties:
a. Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person who
negligently violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by both.
c. Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who knows at that time that
he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious
bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more
than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. A
person which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating
this subparagraph, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
d. False Statements. The Act provides that any person who knowingly
makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in
any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under this Act or who knowingly falsifies,
tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method
required to be maintained under this Act, shall upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not more that $10,000, or by imprisonment for not
more than 2 years, or by both. Except as provided in permit conditions
in Permit Part V.G., Bypass of Treatment Facilities and Permit Part
V.H., Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit shall be construed to
relieve the Permittee of the civil or criminal penalties for
noncompliance.
[[Page 3420]]
C. Need To Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action
that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this
permit.
D. Duty To Mitigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of
back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed
by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the permit.
F. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges or other pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or control of wastewater's shall be disposed of in a manner
so as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters
of the United States.
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The Permittee may allow any
bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions
of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section.
2. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the
need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least
10 days before the date of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under Permit Part IV.G., Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the Director or ADEC may take
enforcement action against a Permittee for a bypass, unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the
use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to
prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2
of this section.
b. The Director and ADEC may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the Director and ADEC determine
that it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a.
of this section.
H. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology based
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph 2 of this
section are met. An administrative review of a claim that noncompliance
was caused by an upset does not represent final administrative action
for any specific event. A determination is not final until formal
administrative action is taken for the specific violation(s).
2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A Permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs,
or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the
cause(s) of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
c. The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under
Permit Part IV.G., Notice of Noncompliance Reporting; and
d. The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under
Permit Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
I. Toxic Pollutants
The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within
the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
VI. General Requirements
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
Notification shall be provided to the Director and ADEC as soon as
the Permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 g/l);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein
and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l)
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
B. Planned Changes.
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director and ADEC as soon as
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the
permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one
of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as
determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
[[Page 3421]]
2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification
applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations
in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Permit Part
VI.A.1.
3. The alteration or addition will significantly change the
location, nature or volume of discharge or the quantity of pollutants,
subject to the effluent limitations, discharged.
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director and
ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which
may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
D. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated
for cause. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
E. Duty to Reapply
If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this
permit after the expiration date of this permit, the Permittee must
apply for and obtain a new permit. The NOI should be submitted at least
90 days before the expiration date of this permit.
F. Duty to Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Director and ADEC, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Director or ADEC may request
to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with
this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Director or ADEC,
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
G. Other Information
When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect
information in a permit application or any report to the Director or
ADEC, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
H. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner
or the proprietor, respectively
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
2. All reports required by the permit and other information
requested by the Director or ADEC shall be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director and ADEC, and
b. The authorization specified either an individual or a position
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator
of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph
IV.H.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or
position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility,
a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.H.2.
must be submitted to the Director and ADEC prior to or together with
any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized
representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section
shall make the following certification:
``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.''
I. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2,
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall
be available for public inspection at the offices of the Director and
ADEC. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent
data shall not be considered confidential.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
K. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of
any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury
to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.
L. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to
any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be
affected thereby.
M. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section
510 of the Act.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities
in this final general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of this
permit have already been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget in submission made for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the CWA.
O. Inspection and Entry
The Permittee shall allow the Director, ADEC, or an authorized
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a
representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility
or activity is located or conducted, or
[[Page 3422]]
where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated
or required under this permit; and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any
substances or parameters at any location.
VII. Reopener Clause
If effluent limitations or requirements are established or modified
in an approved State Water Quality Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and if they are more stringent that those listed in this
permit or control a pollutant not listed in this permit, this permit
may be reopened to include those more stringent limits or requirements.
VIII. Definitions
A. ``Active Stream Channel'' means that part of the channel that is
below the level of the water.
B. ``Bypass'' means the intentional diversion of waste streams
around any portion of a treatment facility.
C. ``Drainage Water'' means incidental surface waters from diverse
sources such as rainfall, snow melt or permafrost melt.
D. ``Expanding Facility'' means any facility increasing in size
such as to affect the discharge but operating within the permit area
covered by its general permit.
E. A ``Grab'' sample is a single sample or measurement taken at a
specific time.
F. ``Hydraulicking'' means both the hydraulic removal of overburden
and the use of hydraulic power to move raw rock to the point of
processing (i.e. to the gate of the sluice or other processing
equipment).
G. ``Infiltration Water'' means that water which permeates through
the earth into the plant site.
H. ``Instantaneous Maximum'' means the maximum value measured at
any time.
I. ``Mine Drainage'' means any water, not associated with active
sluice water, that is drained, pumped or siphoned from a mine.
J. ``Mining Season'' means the time between the start of mining in
a calendar year and when mining has ceased for that same calendar year.
K. ``Monitoring Month'' means the period consisting of the calendar
weeks which begin and end in a given calendar month.
L. ``New Facility'' means a facility that has not operated in the
area specified in the NOI prior to the submission of the NOI.
M. ``NTU'' (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) is an expression of the
optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in a straight line through the water.
N. ``Make-up Water'' means that volume of water needed to replace
process water lost due to evaporation and seepage in order to maintain
the quantity necessary for the operation of the beneficiation process.
O. ``New Water'' means water from any discrete source such as a
river, creek, lake or well which is deliberately allowed or brought
into the plant site.
P. ``Plant Site'' means the area occupied by the mine, necessary
haulage ways from the mine to the beneficiation process, the
beneficiation area, the area occupied by the wastewater treatment
storage facilities and the storage areas for waste materials and solids
removed from the wastewater's during treatment.
Q. ``Receiving Water'' means waters such as lakes, rivers, streams,
creeks, or any other surface waters which receive wastewater
discharges.
R. ``Severe property damage'' means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
S. ``Short circuiting'' means ineffective settling ponds due to
inadequate or insufficient retention characteristics, excessive
sediment deposition, embankment infiltration/percolation, lack of
maintenance, etc.
T. ``Silt and Clay'' are soil particles having a diameter of less
than 0.002 mm (2 microns).
U. ``Turbidity Modification'' means the procedures used to
calculate a higher turbidity limit based on a mass balance equation
which relates upstream receiving water flow and turbidity to effluent
flow and turbidity. The basic form of this equation is:
Q1C1 = Q2C2,
where
C1 = effluent turbidity ;
C2 = receiving water downstream turbidity after mixing where the
allowable increase is 5 NTU above background (i.e. 5 NTU);
Q1 = effluent flow and,
Q2 = total receiving water flow downstream from discharge after
complete mixing (i.e. 30Q10).
V. ``Upset'' means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control
of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities,
inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
W. ``Wastewater'' means all water used in and resulting from the
beneficiation process (including but not limited to the water used to
move the ore to and through the beneficiation process, the water used
to aid in classification, and the water used in gravity separation),
mine drainage, and infiltration and drainage waters which commingle
with mine drainage or waters resulting from the beneficiation process.
Attachment 1
Turbidity Sampling Protocol
1. Grab samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene
or glass container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees Celsius (iced).
4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.
Attachment 2
Arsenic Sampling Protocol
1. Grab samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene
or glass container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees Celsius (iced).
4. Samples must be acidified promptly with nitric acid (HNO3), to a
pH less than 2.\1\
\1\ Samples that are not acidified promptly must be sent to a
laboratory within 48 hours of sample collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Samples must be sent to a laboratory for analysis within 60
days.
6. Samples must be acidified for at least 16 hours prior to
analysis.
Attachment 3
Settleable Solids Sampling Protocol
1. Grab samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene
or glass container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees Celsius (iced), if analysis
is not performed immediately.
[[Page 3423]]
4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.
Settleable Solids Analysis Protocol
1. Fill an Imhoff cone to the liter mark with a thoroughly mixed
sample.
2. Settle for 45 minutes, then gently stir the sides of the cone
with a rod or by gently spinning the cone.
3. Settle 15 minutes longer, then record the volume of settleable
matter in the cone as milliliters per liter. Do not estimate any
floating material. The lowest measurable level on the Imhoff cone is
0.1 ml/l. Any settleable material below the 0.1 ml/l mark shall be
recorded as trace.
Attachment 4: Placer Mine Daily Checklist
Date {time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
Weather {time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
Is There a Discharge Today (including seepage)? {time} {time}
{time} {time} {time}
What is the Volume of Discharge (gallons per minute)? {time}
{time} {time} {time} {time}
How Much Make-up Water Did You Allow Into Your Mine Site, if Any?
{time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
What is the Volume of Settleable Solids in the Effluent? (ML/L)
{time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
Are ANy of Your Ponds, Dikes and Berms Leaking or Eroding?
(describe) {time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
How Far Below Your Discharge Can You Observe a Discharge Plume, If
Any? {time} {time} {time} {time} {time}
Don't Forget to Take Your Turbidity and Arsenic Samples.
[FR Doc. 96-1707 Filed 1-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P